United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 22-30493

Summary Calendar

Allstate Life Insurance Company,

Plaintiff,

versus

Yvette Marcelle, 

Defendant—Appellee,

versus

Eunice Valleria Moore-Lavigne; The Estate of Doctor 

Marilyn Ray-Jones; The Ray-Jones Family Irrevocable 

Trust, 

Defendants—Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:21-CV-469

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 28, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-30493 Document: 00516591253 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/28/2022
No. 22-30493

2

Before Davis, Duncan, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

In this interpleader action instituted by Allstate Life Insurance 

Company (“Allstate”), Defendants-Appellants, Earl Marcelle, Eunice 

Valleria Moore-Lavigne, the Estate of Dr. Marilyn Ray-Jones, and the RayJones Family Irrevocable Trust(collectively “Moore-Lavigne Defendants”), 

appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of CoDefendant, Yvette Marcelle. Because we lack jurisdiction, this appeal is 

DISMISSED.

BACKGROUND

Allstate instituted an interpleader action under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 22, alleging that Dr. Marilyn Ray-Jones purchased an Allstate life 

insurance policy in December 2004. Allstate stated that Dr. Ray-Jones died 

in October 2020, and that her son, who was designated as the primary 

beneficiary on the policy, died approximately one year before in November 

2019. Allstate further alleged that Defendant Yvette Marcelle was 

designated as the contingent beneficiary on the policy and that she had made 

a claim for the policy’s death benefit. However, the Moore-Lavigne 

Defendants also had contacted Allstate, asserting that Dr. Ray-Jones 

intended to have the policy’s proceeds pass into her estate and the Ray-Jones 

Family Irrevocable Trust, of which Earl Marcelle and Eunice Valleria MooreLavigne are the trustees. 

Allstate contended that it was “an innocent, disinterested 

stakeholder” and was “unable to determine the respective interests of the 

known potential claimants to the [p]olicy’s death benefit.” Allstate sought 

“resolution of the conflicting claims in good faith” by instituting an 

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 22-30493 Document: 00516591253 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/28/2022
No. 22-30493

3

interpleader action. Although Allstate alleged that it had “no independent 

liability to any of the defendants,” along with their answer to Allstate’s 

complaint, the Moore-Lavigne Defendants filed a counterclaim against 

Allstate for negligence and breach of contract.

1

 Specifically, they alleged that 

Allstate representatives erroneously communicated that there was no 

contingent beneficiary designated for the policy’s proceeds and that the 

Moore-Lavigne Defendants relied on the erroneous and misleading 

information to their detriment. 

Defendant Yvette Marcelle moved for summary judgment. She 

argued that because the primary beneficiary on the policy was deceased and 

she was the designated contingent beneficiary, she was entitled to the 

policy’s proceeds. The Moore-Lavigne Defendants opposed the motion, 

asserting that because Dr. Ray-Jones “substantially complied” with the 

policy provisions, summary judgment was not warranted. 

The district court determined that Defendant Yvette Marcelle was 

entitled to the proceeds and issued an order granting summary judgment in 

her favor. In its ruling, the district court noted that the Moore-Lavigne 

Defendants had filed a counterclaim against Allstate. The Moore-Lavigne 

Defendants subsequently filed a notice of appeal of the district court’s order 

granting summary judgment. 

DISCUSSION

On appeal, the Moore-Lavigne Defendants argue that the district 

court erred in granting Defendant Yvette Marcelle’s motion for summary 

judgment. 

1 We have noted that in an interpleader action, “[o]nce the stakeholder joins the 

claimants, a claimant may file a counterclaim against the stakeholder as an opposing party.” 

N.Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Deshotel, 142 F.3d 873, 881 (5th Cir. 1998) (citations omitted).

Case: 22-30493 Document: 00516591253 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/28/2022
No. 22-30493

4

“We have jurisdiction to examine the basis of our own jurisdiction.”2 

In their jurisdictional statement, the Moore-Lavigne Defendants “invoke[]” 

the jurisdiction of this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, which provides the 

courts of appeals with “jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the 

district courts of the United States.” As described below, however, the order 

granting summary judgment is not a “final decision” of the district court. 

Consequently, this Court lacks jurisdiction.

“A decision is final when it ends the litigation on the merits and leaves 

nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.”3

 “When an action 

involves multiple parties, any decision that adjudicates the liability of fewer 

than all of the parties does not terminate the action and is therefore not 

appealable unless certified by the district judge under Rule 54(b).”4

In this multiple-party interpleader action, the Moore-Lavigne 

Defendants’ counterclaim against Allstate remains pending in district court. 

In its order granting summary judgment, the district court specifically 

acknowledged that the Moore-Lavigne Defendants had filed a counterclaim

against Allstate. Consequently, to be appealable, the order granting summary 

judgment in favor of Defendant Yvette Marcelle had to be certified as “final” 

by the district court under Rule 54(b) or as appealable under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1292(b), which did not occur. Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction over 

this appeal.

2 Doe v. Tonti Mgmt. Co., L.L.C., 24 F.4th 1005, 1008 (5th Cir. 2022) (citation 

omitted). 

3 Askanese v. Livingwell, Inc., 981 F.2d 807, 810 (5th Cir. 1993) (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted). 

4 Id. (citation omitted).

Case: 22-30493 Document: 00516591253 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/28/2022
No. 22-30493

5

Accordingly, because there is no final and appealable decision, this 

appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. 

Case: 22-30493 Document: 00516591253 Page: 5 Date Filed: 12/28/2022